Connect with us

Tourism and Environment

Surplus of elephants in Zimbabwe inspires anguish, debate

Published

on

BY LINDA MUJURU

One late April evening, Christina Mudzongachiso and her husband were about to head home after a day in their cotton fields in Mbire, a rural community in northern Zimbabwe.

Advertisement

That’s when a lone elephant thundered toward them.

With her 18-month-old lashed to her back, Mudzongachiso and her husband, Nero Muunganirwa, scampered away, and in an effort to save his wife and child, Muunganirwa pushed them out of the elephant’s path.

But as he did, the animal trampled him.

Advertisement

He died instantly.

Elephants have killed more than 100 people in Zimbabwe in recent years, as the country faces a crisis that would have been unheard of decades ago: After its elephant population plunged to fewer than 5,000 in the early 1900s, Zimbabwe is now witnessing conflict between humans and wildlife fomented by the presence of too many of the giant herbivores.

The problem has revived a debate over the role of so-called trophy hunters, an elite clutch of tourists who slay hundreds of elephants a year.

Advertisement

Government officials say the hunters both help cull the elephants and provide much-needed revenue for a pandemic-ravaged tourism sector.

But activists argue that the hunters do more harm than good.

“We believe that animals do not need to pay with their lives to ensure that their species are protected,” said Farai Maguwu, director of the Centre for Natural Resource Governance, a Zimbabwe-based advocacy and research organization.

Advertisement

Trophy hunters typically kill about 200 elephants a year.

For the privilege of roaming Zimbabwe’s parks for elephants, lions and other wildlife between May and November, they pay tens of thousands of dollars.

They have come in for criticism before.

Advertisement

In 2015, an American dentist on a trophy hunting trip in Zimbabwe attracted global scorn when he used a bow and arrow to kill a 12-year-old lion named Cecil.

At the time, the elephant population had rebounded to about 83,000. Ideally, Zimbabwe can host up to 50,000 elephants, said Tinashe Farawo, corporate communications manager for the government’s Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority.

Today, there are more than 100,000.

Advertisement

The growth has outstripped the parks’ capacity to meet the elephants’ needs, Farawo said.

And the coronavirus outbreak only made the situation worse.

Yet trophy hunters don’t kill enough animals to dent Zimbabwe’s elephant population, said Rob Lurie, chairman of the Zimbabwe Professional Guides Association.

Advertisement

Among the hunters are people like Tom from Michigan, a state in the Midwestern United States, who asked not to be fully identified for fear of being stigmatized. His last hunting foray cost the retired contractor $30,000.

On that trip in 2018, he killed a bull elephant.

“We found the bull elephant feeding on some brush in the late afternoon,” he said. “Having seen he was a good-quality old bull with one broken tusk, I decided it was a worthy animal to harvest.”

Advertisement

Using a large-caliber rifle from 10 yards (about 9 meters) away, he shot the elephant in the head.

“It was emotional, but I know it was necessary,” he said, suggesting that killing the elephant helped Zimbabwe’s conservation efforts.

“And yes, I did enjoy the adrenaline of the hunt.”

Advertisement

Trophy hunters usually target older male and female elephants because of their ivory — a practice that “is extremely detrimental to the [elephant] population because both sexes provide critically important ecological and social knowledge, and they aid in the survival of the entire group,” said Audrey Delsink, wildlife director for Humane Society International/Africa, an animal protection group.

Trophy hunters are not to blame for conflicts between elephants and humans, Lurie said. Zimbabwe simply has too many elephants and not enough space for them.

“Because their population habitat is being destroyed, [the elephants] end up moving to where people live in search for food.”

Advertisement

Elephants have killed 120 people in just the last three years, peaking at 60 last year, said Farawo, the wildlife authority representative. And this year, they’ve already taken at least 30 lives.

One proposed solution: Add elephants to areas that don’t have as many, Farawo says. But that’s expensive.

Other revenue-generating options are more politically fraught. They include trophy hunting as well as selling both ivory — a practice outlawed in many countries — and the animals themselves.

Advertisement

“Tourism is not the panacea to wildlife,” Farawo said. “We need to have other options that we use to raise money.”

Trophy hunting helps fund animal conservation and aids rural Zimbabweans, said Emmanuel Fundira, president of the Safari Operators Association of Zimbabwe.

Tom, the trophy hunter, recalls that during his trip, “we took meat to the school and clinic and then the rest of the people.

Advertisement

“There was a lot of excitement and happiness with our delivery.

“Some of these people had lost crops to the elephants, and this was some compensation at least.”

Trophy hunters go home after their trips, but “it is locals who bear the brunt of wildlife vengeance,” Maguwu said.

Advertisement

Mudzongachiso (43), knows this all too well.

She and Muunganirwa, who was 48 when he died, had been married for about three decades and had five children.

She recalls that he worked six days a week in their cotton fields, rarely quitting before sunset.

Advertisement

In their village, he was a headman — a traditional leader — who advised neighbors and helped resolve conflicts. At home, Mudzongachiso said, he loved to play with his children.

“It pains me to think that he died so unexpectedly,” she said.

“I don’t know how l am going to carry on from where he left.

Advertisement

“Something should be done to avoid more people getting killed by these elephants.” – Global Press Journal

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Hwange

Hwange residents petition parliament over coal mining health risks

Published

on


BY NOKUTHABA DLAMINI 

The Greater Whange Residents Trust has presented a petition to the Parliament of Zimbabwe, drawing attention to the health risks associated with coal mining in Hwange.

The trust, which advocates for the welfare and interests of people in Hwange, highlights the need for urgent action to protect residents from the harmful effects of coal dust pollution.

According to the trust, the Pneumonoconiosis Act (Chapter 15:08), which was enacted to protect workers in dusty occupations, does not provide adequate protection for ordinary residents who are also affected by coal dust pollution.

The trust argues that the Act is “exclusionary” and was not designed to benefit ordinary residents, who are not eligible for regular medical checks to determine the impact of coal dust on their health.

Below is the full petition that was submitted to Parliament:

DRAW the attention of the House to the following:

1. The Constitution mandates the Parliament of Zimbabwe to make laws, carry out executive oversight and discharge a representative role, as well as protect the Constitution and democratic governance in Zimbabwe.

Advertisement



2. Section 117(2) of the Constitution, inter alia, mandates Parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of Zimbabwe.

3. Section 8 of the Constitution sets out the objectives to guide all institutions and agencies of the State in the formulation and implementation of policies that will lead to the establishment, enhancement and promotion of a sustainable, just, free and democratic society in which people enjoy prosperous, happy and fulfilling lives.

4. Greater Whange Residents Trust is a Hwange-basedTrust which advocates for the welfare and interests of people in Hwange.

Advertisement



5. The town of Hwange is home to over 50 000 residents. These include men, women and children that are not employed as miners.
6. Coal mining is a key industry in that town and impacts on both the residents and the environment of Hwange town and beyond. Hwange is also surrounded by land which falls under the National Parks.

7. The Pneumonoconiosis Act (Chapter 15:08) came into operation on 1 August 1971. The Act remains in force. The long title of the Act gives as its objects the following: An Act to provide for the control and administration of persons employed in dusty occupations; and to provide for matters incidental to or connected with the foregoing. (emphasis added).

8. The Act was designed to respond to health issues affecting those employed in dusty occupations. Naturally,it is ill-equipped to respond to issues of stakeholders beyond this categorisation as stated by the lawmaker.

Advertisement



9. Mining in Hwange consists of both open cast and underground mining operations. Coal mining creates dust and dusty conditions that affect not just those employed by the coal mines. It affects communities that live on and around the mines.

10. Section 56 of the Constitution provides that all persons are equal before the law and have a right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

11. Your petitioners submit that ordinary residents of Hwange that are not employed in the coal mines are not benefiting from the provisions of the Act as currently framed. For instance, those directly employed in coal mines are eligible for regular medical checks under the Act to determine the impact of coal dust on their health, particularly the heart and kidneys. Ordinary residents are not beneficiaries of such tests. The Act was not designed for their benefit. It was exclusionary from the start.
12. Residents that are not employees of coal mines are therefore susceptible to health risks associated with coal mining, without the protection of the law. With the increase in coal and related mining activities, the number of persons that are not subject to the protection of the law thanks to the crafting of the Act has also increased. It is desirable that the Act be reviewed to embrace the protection of all persons that stay or live in environments that are subjected to coal mining dust. It may also be worthwhile for Parliament to consider how the Act could enjoin coal miners to contribute towards the reduction of coal dust, to enhance the health of residents.
13. Your petitioners are aware that section 73 of the Constitution guarantees their right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being, and to have their environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations. In this regard, the State must ensure the progressive realisation of this right by residents of Hwange.

Advertisement



WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray as follows:

That the Parliament of Zimbabwe to exercises its constitutional mandate to

Advertisement



1. Inquire into the nature and extent of the threat posed to residents due to the dust pollution;
2. Review the fairness of the Pneumonoconiosis Act [Chapter 15:08] to non-employees of the coal mining industry that reside in coal mining areas; and
3. Make recommendations on the review of the Act given the current situation in coal mining areas.

Advertisement



Continue Reading

Slider

Zimparks defends elephant culling: ‘Conservationists are greedy and misinformed’

Published

on

BY STAFF REPORTER 

In a recent interview with VicFallsLive reporter Nokuthaba Dlamini, Tinashe Farawo of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (Zimparks) addressed the controversy surrounding elephant culling in Zimbabwe.

Farawo responded to criticism from conservationists on social media, who have condemned Zimparks for their handling of problem elephants in communities.

The debate sparked after an incident in Victoria Falls two months ago, where an elephant was killed in the suburbs, and others were killed in Hwange town.

Farawo defended Zimparks’ actions, stating that communities are under distress due to elephants causing unwarranted curfews, disrupting daily life, and even resulting in fatalities.

He criticized conservationists for slamming the idea of shooting to kill problem elephants, accusing them of being “greedy lots” who are more interested in fundraising than providing solutions.

Below are excerpts from the interview, where Farawo shares his perspective on the matter:

We don’t deal with activists, this is activism they are not conservationists, they are just activists

What we do, let me give you an example we have a hunting quota of 500 elephants every year, and this hunting quota has been in place since 1991, we have never exhausted that quota

We have a management quota that is in place there are many things that we can do. Do they know the definition of culling for example?

When we react to distress calls when communities tell us that there are elephants and lions there and we respond and when we respond we do an assessment and when human life is under threat we are left with no option, but to eliminate

In respect of the two incidences one which happened here in Victoria Falls and the other incident which happened in Hwange, you can actually see that the elephants were in the streets in communities and when we go there, we do an assessment.

Communities in Hwange last month were put on an unwanted curfew by the elephants. For two weeks, no one was going to school, no one was leaving his or her homestead

We receive those distress calls and we go there to restore order and the options that we have is either we scare the animals away, but if human life is under threat, we are left with no option.

We are no apologetic, that’s our job, our laws provide for that.

But because they don’t that and they don’t know the definition of culling and because they are activists and if they were conservationists they would understand what l am saying.

They are just raising their own money in the name our elephants, for their benefits.

They are just greedy and they have never given us options or alternatives to say what is it can we can do with the crisis.

We have a lot of biodiversity projects around our parks, do they say anything about it.

Communities lose their lives l, we have never heard them, even a condolence message.

Continue Reading

Hwange

Wildlife Conservation: A double-edged sword for Hwange communities

Published

on

Hwange woman attacked by a crocodile in Matetsi River. She is footing her own medical bill

 BY BRENDA NCUBE
In the heart of Matabeleland North’s Hwange district, wildlife conservation has become a contentious issue.

While the area is renowned for its rich biodiversity and generating substantial revenue, local communities are struggling to reap the benefits.

For communal farmers like Binwell Sibanda, the presence of wild animals has become a constant threat to their livelihoods.

“We rely heavily on farming, but these animals destroy our crops and livestock every year,” Sibanda lamented.

“We expect National Parks and CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) to control wildlife and not let them roam freely in communal areas.”

Nicholas Tembo, another affected farmer, emphasized the need for compensation for losses incurred due to human-wildlife conflict. “We should be reimbursed for our losses if wildlife destroys our crops or kills livestock,” he said.

The communities are also demanding that park authorities take responsibility in cases of human-wildlife attacks, including paying medical bills, funeral expenses, and supporting victims’ dependents.

Furthermore, the villagers are advocating for a quota for game meat to alleviate hunger and reduce poaching. “The park rangers can cull the animals and share the meat with the community,” Tembo suggested.

However, the communities are frustrated with CAMPFIRE, feeling that the program benefits the association running it rather than the communities themselves.

They are calling for CAMPFIRE to devise programs that channel funds from hunting trophies to benefit the communities, such as rural electrification and drilling boreholes.

The villagers are also seeking a more nuanced approach to addressing poaching, considering the motivations behind it. “If someone is caught poaching or snaring, the law should consider what they plan to do with the animal,” Tembo said.

As the debate surrounding the Parks and Wildlife Amendment Bill (H.B.1, 2024) continues, communities are keep on voicing concerns over compensation for victims of wildlife attacks and seeking clarity on how the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Authority plans to handle these compensations.

They are also demanding sovereignty over wildlife management, advocating for local authorities to take the lead.

Amidst the thriving tourism activities in the area, it is ironic that communities bordering national parks live in poverty. As Tembo emphasized, “It’s time for us to benefit from wildlife conservation and tourism.”

Advertisement



Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 VicFallsLive. All rights reserved, powered by Advantage